4 ms·

This study from MIT found that the LCOE of fully renewable energy production, backed by LI batteries would be $3000/MWh vs $2400/MWh for hydrogen instead of bat

This study from MIT found that the LCOE of fully renewable energy production, backed by LI batteries would be $3000/MWh vs $2400/MWh for hydrogen instead of batteries for storage: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210829-mitei.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210829-mitei.html Either alternative is about 15x to 50x more expensive than Nuclear, though....

pfdietz 4y ago
That's grossly excessive. This website lets you look at optimization vs. actual historical weather data and reaches a much lower cost. BTW, you use both batteries AND storage; their combination can be cheaper than either alone. You also store the hydrogen underground rather than above ground. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
- trashtester 4y ago
  I agree that a combination of batteries and hydrogen would be a bit cheaper, but generally I would trust the MIT study over the model above, that states directly that it is a toy model. It's fun to play with, though, so definitely upvoted. Do you have an alternative peer reviewed study to support the conclusions?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    (Edited to actually look at the link) Looking at that first link, it appears to cost/kWh is the cost for just the seasonal power that is being produced from hydrogen. It is not the average cost/kWh over all the energy being consumed off the grid. Comparing this to nuclear is to compare apples and oranges. Nuclear supplies baseload, not additional seasonal power. If you tried to use nuclear to supply seasonal power the cost would be extreme. If you use nuclear to supply baseload, it is competing not just with hydrogen but also with much lower cost energy sent directly from renewables to the grid, and from batteries to the grid. Of course the fraction of the output from the hydrogen fueled turbines will be expensive. But what we get from that toy model is the average cost of power, of which seasonally stored power is just a small part. In that toy model, nuclear is "Dispatchable 2", which you can enable, and which comes out to about 10 euro/kWh (EPR assumptions, perhaps optimistic considering Flamanville 3.)
    - trashtester 4y ago
      I alredy provided the link that led to the original paper, here is the original paper, though: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261921007261?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
    - trashtester 4y ago
      About using nuclear to cover seasonal variation, its not ideal, but at worst you increase the cost by 50-100%. Day/night cycles can make that even slightly worse, but even small amounts of storage can even that out. This Korean study claims that a at 3% dicount rate, the price the LCOE of their APR1400 reactors go from 36Won/kWh (a bit under 3cents) at 90% average utilization to 52Won/kWh (a bit over 4 cents) at 60% average utilization. In both cases, the costs are very reasonable.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > Looking at that first link, it appears to cost/kWh is the cost for just the seasonal power that is being produced from hydrogen. I interpreted those numbers as average LCOE for the electricy supply, but I could be wrong. Let's assume that you're right, and this only applies to maybe 25% of total energy needs. The averge price would still be increased by $1000/MWh, on top of the renewable costs themselves, grid costs, etc.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        If you go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and solve for California, 2011 weather data, 2030 cost assumptions, hydrogen is contributing just 5.9 euro/MWh to the average cost of electricity (less than 10% of the total cost of 68.1 euro/MWh). This is for supplying "synthetic baseload", the best case for nuclear (for varying demand, renewables could only do better, since one could always just swap out the nuclear source with this synthetic source, providing an upper bound on the cost.) Nuclear will do best in more northerly places that are away from coasts. Poland, for example. For extremely northerly places, like Alaska, the total demand is so small that nuclear is not a good fit.
freemint 4y ago
I thought the article we are replying to said >>$4000+/MWh for nuclear not including financing.
- trashtester 4y ago
  No, it is saying that it is currently about $6000000/MW construction cost. Then you devide by number of hours of operations to get the cost per MW/h. (Not adjusted for interest rate.) The LCOE of new nuclear plants have estimates ranging from less than $30/MWh to around $150/MWh, while estimates for the cost of plants built a few decades ago end up at around $40-60/MWh, from the numbers I've seen.

pfdietz 4y ago

That's grossly excessive. This website lets you look at optimization vs. actual historical weather data and reaches a much lower cost. BTW, you use both batteries AND storage; their combination can be cheaper than either alone. You also store the hydrogen underground rather than above ground. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/

trashtester 4y ago
I agree that a combination of batteries and hydrogen would be a bit cheaper, but generally I would trust the MIT study over the model above, that states directly that it is a toy model. It's fun to play with, though, so definitely upvoted. Do you have an alternative peer reviewed study to support the conclusions?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  (Edited to actually look at the link) Looking at that first link, it appears to cost/kWh is the cost for just the seasonal power that is being produced from hydrogen. It is not the average cost/kWh over all the energy being consumed off the grid. Comparing this to nuclear is to compare apples and oranges. Nuclear supplies baseload, not additional seasonal power. If you tried to use nuclear to supply seasonal power the cost would be extreme. If you use nuclear to supply baseload, it is competing not just with hydrogen but also with much lower cost energy sent directly from renewables to the grid, and from batteries to the grid. Of course the fraction of the output from the hydrogen fueled turbines will be expensive. But what we get from that toy model is the average cost of power, of which seasonally stored power is just a small part. In that toy model, nuclear is "Dispatchable 2", which you can enable, and which comes out to about 10 euro/kWh (EPR assumptions, perhaps optimistic considering Flamanville 3.)
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I alredy provided the link that led to the original paper, here is the original paper, though: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261921007261?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
  - trashtester 4y ago
    About using nuclear to cover seasonal variation, its not ideal, but at worst you increase the cost by 50-100%. Day/night cycles can make that even slightly worse, but even small amounts of storage can even that out. This Korean study claims that a at 3% dicount rate, the price the LCOE of their APR1400 reactors go from 36Won/kWh (a bit under 3cents) at 90% average utilization to 52Won/kWh (a bit over 4 cents) at 60% average utilization. In both cases, the costs are very reasonable.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > Looking at that first link, it appears to cost/kWh is the cost for just the seasonal power that is being produced from hydrogen. I interpreted those numbers as average LCOE for the electricy supply, but I could be wrong. Let's assume that you're right, and this only applies to maybe 25% of total energy needs. The averge price would still be increased by $1000/MWh, on top of the renewable costs themselves, grid costs, etc.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      If you go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and solve for California, 2011 weather data, 2030 cost assumptions, hydrogen is contributing just 5.9 euro/MWh to the average cost of electricity (less than 10% of the total cost of 68.1 euro/MWh). This is for supplying "synthetic baseload", the best case for nuclear (for varying demand, renewables could only do better, since one could always just swap out the nuclear source with this synthetic source, providing an upper bound on the cost.) Nuclear will do best in more northerly places that are away from coasts. Poland, for example. For extremely northerly places, like Alaska, the total demand is so small that nuclear is not a good fit.

freemint 4y ago

I thought the article we are replying to said >>$4000+/MWh for nuclear not including financing.

trashtester 4y ago
No, it is saying that it is currently about $6000000/MW construction cost. Then you devide by number of hours of operations to get the cost per MW/h. (Not adjusted for interest rate.) The LCOE of new nuclear plants have estimates ranging from less than $30/MWh to around $150/MWh, while estimates for the cost of plants built a few decades ago end up at around $40-60/MWh, from the numbers I've seen.